LincolnLover

So we should "just have to deal" with illegal immigrants? Ok, I can see the idea of saying there will be some no matter what, but the idea of "just deal" with paying their debts is a whole different deal.

Do you think that requiring to have a state ID (free to get) is "racist" too?

Fair? Wtf are you talking about. Ok, look it. There are things in life you have to deal with. Like a wealthy country getting immigration from a poor bordering country, I mean shi.t man what would you think would happen. We all pay for services and projects that are used by people that didn't pay for them. If not, we would have no roads, no bridges, no fire depts., no administration for anything including courts, basically nothing needed for a functional society. So yes, you cannot only pay for what you get- that's not just selfish its impossible as a practical matter. To have anything you and I must pay for things used by us and people who didn't pay for it. Sorry, but otherwise none of us would have anything.

It seems the arguments behind the positions you are advocating are based on morals or beliefs and not numbers (naively reminiscent of abstinence education arguments- thinking human beings or any animal will avoid sex is just plain gullibility inspired by morality). Illegal immigrants using U.S. based facilities maybe morally deplorable to you, but as a practical matter of course it will happen. You can't stop it. Understanding the numerical situation is important and relatively small. You may not like poor immigrants using "your" stuff, but the drain is relatively small and unavoidable.

Its hard for me to piss on the poor and the destitute from my nice warm apartment at my nice expensive computer. But that's just my morality and possibly just as naive.

Maybe I can express my point in an contrapositive way: why is Alabama so harsh on illegal immigrants with a peek Hispanic population of less than %4 (just to be clear that means that not only is the Hispanic pop insanely small in Bama, but the illegal immigrant population is yet even smaller within that)? - Morality: illegal immigration is wrong so they made crazy harsh regs and caused problems to solve a problem that never existed. I doubt they will say the obvious- "opps". They should though.

Yes. Nothing is perfect. Ratifying health care to deal with "free loaders", i.e. the poor does make sense. No argument here. Ostracizing people who make 17k a year for being unable to pay a 100k medical bill after a car accident or afford 2k per year in insurance is a little obtuse, yeah I'll admit that. The attacks and the blaming is what I criticize. Nothing is perfect, yes we have to deal with things we don't like. Adults should know that. You can them hate all you want, I'm just saying: mathematically/fiscally/numerically/practically/quantitatively- illegal immigration is not very consequential and horribly predicable- we really don't have to pay for their debt- the math isn't there (not to mention that they are poor as sh.it and we are asking them to give our rich asses money). The problem comes in where morality become the center piece over reality. It shouldn't be, doesn't seem to matter if it matters if it is or isn't seems a weak position to me.

As to the state I.D.s. "Why"- is the first thought that comes to mind. Who is being targeted. Are you referencing the voter I.D.ing controversy? Is it racist? I'm not sure about that. Is it designed to limit who can or will vote, thus changing voter demographics? Yes, that is very likely.

The problem with process is that the poor and/or uneducated won't participate even if it is free. They have to know about it. Regs like that are often designed to limit them or worse target a specific group (which has been done directly to black communities in the past with voter laws). Why would you want a state I.D. card? We already have one by proxy: driver's licenses.

LincolnLover

Two major logic errors come to mind. You seem to be unable to seperate the poor from illegal immigrants, reread my previous post.You seem to think it is wrong to limit voting to people legally allowed to vote in the first place.

Yes. Nothing is perfect. Ratifying health care to deal with "free loaders", i.e. the poor does make sense. No argument here. Ostracizing people who make 17k a year for being unable to pay a 100k medical bill after a car accident or afford 2k per year in insurance is a little obtuse, yeah I'll admit that. The attacks and the blaming is what I criticize. Nothing is perfect, yes we have to deal with things we don't like. Adults should know that. You can them hate all you want, I'm just saying: mathematically/fiscally/numerically/practically/quantitatively- illegal immigration is not very consequential and horribly predicable- we really don't have to pay for their debt- the math isn't there (not to mention that they are poor as sh.it and we are asking them to give our rich asses money). The problem comes in where morality become the center piece over reality. It shouldn't be, doesn't seem to matter if it matters if it is or isn't seems a weak position to me.

As to the state I.D.s. "Why"- is the first thought that comes to mind. Who is being targeted. Are you referencing the voter I.D.ing controversy? Is it racist? I'm not sure about that. Is it designed to limit who can or will vote, thus changing voter demographics? Yes, that is very likely.

The problem with process is that the poor and/or uneducated won't participate even if it is free. They have to know about it. Regs like that are often designed to limit them or worse target a specific group (which has been done directly to black communities in the past with voter laws). Why would you want a state I.D. card? We already have one by proxy: driver's licenses.

Illegal immigrants are poor. Otherwise they wouldn't be illegal- they're migrating for jobs, man, poor country to rich country- a very, very old and typical story. They can't pay their medical bills. Immigrants with means can afford to go through the process, or at least know what it is. You think people make the crossing work as dishwashers for $5/hr because they are wanderlasting (I actually have know one person who did that because he was wanderlasting, but only one)? MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE POOR.

I never said voting shouldn't be limited to legal voters- whatever that means. I said politically, in the modern climate, the voter I.D. controversy is likely a means to restrict certain demographics from voting- its an old story done many, many times in the past in a variety of ways. I'm actually on the fence with this issue- both sides have merit if and only if there is excessive voting by non registered voters or the dead or voters voting more than once. Are you broadening my premises and is that where you see a flaw in logic? From my perspective that is precisely what it looks like (this is the nicest way I could think of to say it).

I guess a few questions I'm asking are: Who are the people who are voting that shouldn't be voting? How big of a problem is it (in numbers please- if only 5 illegal immigrants are voting then it is not a problem)? I suspect that in most jurisdiction its not a big problem, but if in some it is it should be addressed. But, broadly addressing it with a mandatory ID program seems excessive and tactical in a politically purposeful way- that isn't good.

LincolnLover

Never said that most illegals weren't poor, that's not the logic error. The logic error is assuming any move to stop illegal immigration is an attack on the poor in general, since not all poor are illegal immigrants. Plus if a millionare was here illegally and tried to vote, he should be denied too. So it has nothing to do with income.

As for who should vote, those who meet the legal requirments. #1 requirment being who they say they are and able to prove it.How is requiring ID "exessive"? It's required for virtually every other part of life. Heck a SSN is more "excessive" than that, and required for virtually everything one does.

Illegal immigrants are poor. Otherwise they wouldn't be illegal- they're migrating for jobs, man, poor country to rich country- a very, very old and typical story. They can't pay their medical bills. Immigrants with means can afford to go through the process, or at least know what it is. You think people make the crossing work as dishwashers for $5/hr because they are wanderlasting (I actually have know one person who did that because he was wanderlasting, but only one)? MOST ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE POOR.

I never said voting shouldn't be limited to legal voters- whatever that means. I said politically, in the modern climate, the voter I.D. controversy is likely a means to restrict certain demographics from voting- its an old story done many, many times in the past in a variety of ways. I'm actually on the fence with this issue- both sides have merit if and only if there is excessive voting by non registered voters or the dead or voters voting more than once. Are you broadening my premises and is that where you see a flaw in logic? From my perspective that is precisely what it looks like (this is the nicest way I could think of to say it).

I guess a few questions I'm asking are: Who are the people who are voting that shouldn't be voting? How big of a problem is it (in numbers please- if only 5 illegal immigrants are voting then it is not a problem)? I suspect that in most jurisdiction its not a big problem, but if in some it is it should be addressed. But, broadly addressing it with a mandatory ID program seems excessive and tactical in a politically purposeful way- that isn't good.

Hmmm. Ok, at first I thought you were just messing with me. That would be fine. However, sometimes I'm a little slow: You seem to have no sense of logic or where we are going. Using a term like "logic" and making crazy wild generalizations is just silly. Studying for the LSAT, ehe? . I have made a few assumptions, but no concrete logical errors. We have different premises and different conclusions that lead to different assumptions, but no concrete logical errors. I assumed you knew illegal immigrants do not vote- I.D. or no I.D. they cannot register to vote.

There aren't enough millionaires total for their numbers to be a serious issue at the voting booth in terms of numbers- population. The number of illegal immigrates who are millionaires is so infinitesimally small as not to exist. I am not, and have not been, talking morality: what's right or wrong, what should be or what shouldn't be based on "what's right". I have mentioned what is practical and real and what should be done or not done based on practical issues. Millionaire illegal immigrants are not real, they do not exist (no more of that kind of silliness please).

Poor illegal immigrants are what illegal immigrants are in this world, in reality. Illegal immigrants = some poor people, but not all poor people. They do not vote. The I.D. controversy is outside the illegal immigrant group. Advocates for voting I.D. are using the hot topic of illegal immigration to stop poor American citizens from voting- that is the demographic I was referencing, not illegal immigrants voting. Well that is the argument against the mandatory I.D.s anyway. Like I said, I'm on the fence with this issue.

Different assumptions or even premises are the problem here, not logical errors.

LincolnLover

ok, you raise some good points. How can it truely be "racist" though? I heared Jesse Jackson ranting on his "news" show (for the 5 minutes I could stomach it) that it was racist towards black voters somehow. WTF is that? It's a FREE ID and race is not a factor.

His argument is that the I.D. controversy is targeted at restricting people in a poor demographic- American citizen who are poor, not illegal immigrants. Proponents of the I.D. program are using the fear of illegal immigrant to force the issue. Illegal immigrants can't vote in the system as is, thus they are a non issue. But, in many part of the country, to pass something all you need to do is say that its to stop illegal immigrants and people rally to it. Our growing fear and corresponding hostility to illegal immigrants does concern me, I will admit that.

Poor people, I mean truly poor people (inter city Baltimore, for example) don't have bank accounts, drivers licenses, credit cards, passports- all the stuff most of us have and take for granted. They live in a cash and barter based world. Mandating I.D.s, free or not, limits their numbers at the voting booth because they won't get an I.D. card- why would they? it has no purpose other than voting and there are more immediately pressing things going on in life than voting- like being short $20 for rent.

Of course a counter is: well, how are they registering to vote? With or without an I.D. voters must always present their voter registration card (I can't remember a time when I voted and wasn't asked for my voter's registration card and a driver's license- to make sure I was in the right voting district, not to detect fraud).

Jessie Jackson is from another generation. He can remember when African Americans were treated horribly by the system at large, society and the gov. If he toned down his rhetoric, he would be more effective. I chose Baltimore for a reason: black politics is strong there and neighborhoods there that have populations like I described (where people have no reason to get I.D.s, or use the services the rest of us use). In fact, after writing this the thought occurred to me to look at what some of the other more metered politicians of the Black community are saying, like Elisha Cummings- who might be one of the more rational and thoughtful of all our politicians, not just our Black politicians.

Jackson may rage too much, but that doesn't mean he has no point or that he's a dumb ass. He is insinuating racism against Hispanics is being used to restrict poor Black voters, who almost always vote Dem. The hostility toward illegal immigration is a potential attack on Hispanics- that is, sadly, happening. Is trying to restrict a demographic (Blacks vote Dem over %90 of the time, I think, but they aren't the only group like that) racist? I can see from his perspective why he would think voting I.D. is racist.

ok, you raise some good points. How can it truely be "racist" though? I heared Jesse Jackson ranting on his "news" show (for the 5 minutes I could stomach it) that it was racist towards black voters somehow. WTF is that? It's a FREE ID and race is not a factor.

julie love it when you republican dipshits try so hard deny racist effects.

can you give julie any evidence that illegal voting occurring? this "solution" in search problem.